chorus_get_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It indicates a read-only retrieval ('récupère') and enumerates possible statuses, but does not disclose behavior for unknown/invalid IDs, error conditions, or the exact return structure. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves notable gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence covers purpose, parameter provenance, and expected status values. There is no redundant information and it is front-loaded with the main action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what identifier to supply and what statuses to expect. However, it does not specify the output format or error behavior, which would make it fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already defines invoiceId with high coverage, but the description adds useful operational meaning by explaining that the value is the CPP identifier returned at submission time. This links the parameter to a prior workflow step, going beyond the schema's static label.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear action ('Récupère le statut de traitement d'une facture...'), names the specific resource (Chorus Pro invoice), and identifies the origin of the invoice identifier ('identifiant CPP retourné lors du dépôt'). The list of possible statuses further clarifies the domain. It is clearly distinct from siblings like chorus_submit (submission) and chorus_list_invoices (listing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies use after an invoice has been submitted, when the caller holds the CPP identifier returned at deposit time. This gives a clear operational context but does not explicitly mention when to prefer chorus_list_invoices or exclude alternative tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.